Does any one know just how many prefixes for licensed amateur
radio stations, world wide, exist ????

73, John...K8JD

Yes, I'm sure someone does...

73 Mark K3MSB

I expect a few more than zero and a few less
than infinite number.

Do not you think?

Editor....

MPW Award Distance Calculator Issue

Dear SKCC Members and others.

We have been using the N9SSA website for
calculating the Miles Per Watt distances for our QRP MPW Award but that site is
no longer available.
I am looking into alternate sources of distance calculations and one
possibility is using the same method QRP/ARCI uses which is the info from
QRZ.com.

When you look up a station on QRZ.com, go to the
"Details" page and you should see a distance and bearing listed.
I have software I can use for now so we do NOT have to halt the issuing of the
MPW Awards but I would like to find something each Op can reference himself
also.
I will issue an update as soon as I have resolved this issue.
73 Bill W0EJ SKCC MPW Award Administrater

I'm a fan of the Vizkey cootie. It's very
comfortable to use - if you like swing music then this is the key for you!

The newly released larger base enhances its
charms.

'nough said.

'Mike Pilgrim' SKCCGroup

Code practice receiver

Several years ago I built a little 40m CW receiver for a friend
who just wanted to listen to some Morse Code because he had been a radio
operator in WWII.

I also wanted to try my hand at Manhattan construction.

My friend passed away several years ago and his son returned the
receiver to me.

Since I am trying to accumulate some funds for another radio
goodie, I'd like to see if I can sell the little receiver.

I believe it is built from the receiver design of the Small Wonder
Labs SW40, but its been so long, I can't be sure. It tunes from about 7.020 Mhz
to about 7.050 (doesn't quite make it to the 40m skcc frequency, although a
capacitor change can adjust this).

The only controls are the frequency knob and a volume knob.

It runs nicely with a 9v. battery, and the power connector fits
that.

Just plug in the battery, plug in headphones with 1/8" plug,
and connect some kind of antenna and you're ready to go!

Remember, there is the “right” way, the “wrong” way, and the
“Army” (or in this case, Navy) way.

This style of sending was developed for the unique operating
conditions of ships at sea.

Note the style works well with the “Nary knob” style finger piece
and allows you to keep control of the key in turbulent conditions.

Airborne operators have a very similar problem and solution.

There is also the “European” way with the arm completely off the
table and all movement is arm, not wrist or fingers.

The “American” style with the arm resting on the table and either
the wrist or fingers moving the key.

Then, of course, bugs and cooties.

Finally, variations and combinations of all of the above.

I’d say whatever style you use that is comfortable for you and
does not cause pain after extended operating is a good method for you.

My style varies depending on key, operating requirements etc.

I may simply use fingers to tap a quick SKCC exchange on my
Junker’s Navy but for a WES that would exhaust me quickly not to mention drive
the arthritis in my hand to extreme discomfort because of the extended
operating time.

My Kent key is most comfortable to me if I use the European style.

My J-38 style keys work well American style.

For long operating sessions, switching between keys and styles
keep me from burning out by using just one set of muscles.

I guess the direct answer to your question would be to try it and
see if it works well for you. If it does, great; that is one more style in your
skill set.

If it does not feel right, ignore it and use what is most
comfortable for you.

I occasionally use a Remington "Radio Telegraph" model
all-cap mill for copying radiograms on Radio Relay International nets.

At one time, I had three Remington Mills brand new in the box,
which I purchased at a typewriter supply store in Brooklyn, NY. I donated one
for use during telegraph demonstrations at the Western Development Museum in
Alberta, Canada.

The second one lived at a club station in the basement of an
American Red Cross Chapter until an incompetent city employee connected a pump
backward and filled the basement with sewage, thereby destroying everything
including the mill.

Now there's one left and it lives in my shack! LOL.

I wrote an article about all-cap mills in the April, 2014 issue of
the "QNI Newsletter."

Here
is a short video of the our radio room aboard COD.
The video shot about nine years ago on VHS tape and then digitized and
uploaded.
I just looked at the video again and am embarrassed as it looks like someone
mashed all the keys on the mill. I think I will re-do this video with newer
video equipment.
In the video, you'll see our RAL/RAK twin pairs, RBO, Collins TCS-12, TBL-7
transmitter and more.https://youtu.be/2ZO1FHXe7so

BTW,
if any of you folks will ever be in Cleveland, Ohio, and would like to tour the
boat and/or operate the station, we'd love to have you, so please feel free to
get a hold of me.

I’m familiar with CW and what morse over the air sounds like but I
have no background with actual telegraphs where morse originated.

I gather the closing of the contacts and the subsequent release
makes distinct sounds?

And, since the connection is normally energized with the contacts
closed, the first sound is the release of the telegraph?

Or does the actual message begin after someone’s broken the
connection at least once, and the first sound is the re-energizing of the
relay?
IOW if I send “dash dash” would that be “... click-long pause-clack-short
pause-click-long pause-clack” or “...clack-long pause-click-short
pause-clack-long pause-click”?

Is the last sound you’d typically hear a “click” or a “clack”?
Thanks in advance for any insights!
73, N6PWD -Patrick.You can check out this crude Youtube Video:

Essentially, the report when the armature is pulled down by the
electromagnets differs somewhat from the report when the magnets release and
the armature is pulled up by the spring.

The telegrapher doesn't really time the
difference between these two reports or "clicks" and
"clacks," but rather learns the rhythm pattern associated with the
Morse characters.

It's rather easy to make the transition from
tones to the rhythm patterns on a sounder in a code with which you are already
proficient in (e.g. a ham learning to copy International Morse on a sounder).

Learning American Morse requires that one learn some new and
alternate characters, which lengthens the transition process.

Nonetheless, it's quite possible to do so provided one engages the
process properly.

The "new" version of his WSPR transmitter that he now
sells is slightly different from the version that I have:

The main difference is that my version has an option for a very
low duty cycle, just transmitting every half-hour.

The new version, as I understand, can transmit continuously, but
after every 2-minute transmission it intentionally jumps to different,
pseudo-random transmit frequency within the standard 200-Hz WSPR band.

This avoids any chance of being permanently stuck on a single
frequency occupied by some other strong station.

The new version has slightly better frequency stability than the
version that I have.

At the moment, I have to switch manually
between my 20m and my 30m WSPR transmitters.

I'm in the process of building a trivial box that will switch
between them automatically, so that I can study the propagation on 20m and 30m
at the same time.

Note that there is no PC or any other computer linked in any way
to the W5OLF design.

You just connect DC power and an antenna, push the
"start" button at the start of an even minute, (Editor... see
below) and start looking for your reports appearing at: wsprnet.org /

And seems to indicate a different measurement?
"Darrel Emerson, AA7FV, was the only person ever to
achieve Level A." and "The best AA7FV was able to do by ear was Z7,
which is 9 dB stronger than Level A, i.e., a key-down SNR of –0.6 dB at 100 Hz.

He writes that at Z8 (-3.6 dB), he was able to copy only
occasional CW characters by ear and at Z9 (-6.6 dB), only the presence of
signal could be detected
but no characters copied. "
Read more at the link above!
How do the dB in these two tests relate to each other?

Are you both familiar with each others tests?

The dB appear to be different in these tests?

I'm totally a layman in this stuff so I don't understand the
values, sorry to say!

I think you subtract 17dB from the above, so Darrel could copy in
Wim's test -17.6dB?!
I could copy I think (yet to be confirmed) most of things
with fair accuracy up to and including file "h" but then file
"i" for me was "only the presence of a signal could be detected
but ONLY A FEW characters copied and not with any certainty"!
All good fun and thanks to OM Wim for conducting this interesting experiment,
we look forward to reading the conclusions!
Wow, are we in interesting and talented company in the Side Swiper fraternity!
Have fun taking part in Wim's test!
73 es 77 de Lou VK5EEE

That's a step back in history.

The ZRO tests were organised by AMSAT in the early 1990s for
reception of weak CW signals from Oscar 13, when the satellite was at its
furthest point from the earth.

The tests were conducted periodically on 144 MHz and on 432 MHz.

A series of random numbers was transmitted from the satellite in
CW.

The transmitted power from the satellite was reduced in 3 dB
steps, from level 1, 2, ... 9, A
.... The competition was to see what was the weakest level that you could
decode perfectly, so it involved setting up a fairly high gain antenna pointing
in the right direction, with low noise antenna amplifiers.

A good antenna only took you so far, because you would start
picking up the background noise from the satellite transmitter itself, so
beyond that a better antenna couldn't help.

My claim to fame was that I was the only person ever to decode the
weakest level, ZRO A.
To do this I worked on a digitized recording of the signal, using extensive FFT
filtering down to a few Hz bandwidth, tracking the drifting frequency (varying
Doppler shift etc.) and using software to sync to the slightly changing speed
of CW transmission, buried in the noise, with a bit of probability theory
thrown in.

There's also a link to the original data file there.
The comment on my just being able to decode level ZRO 7 by ear, was just to
emphasize how far into the noise the FORTRAN digital processing was getting.
A full write-up appeared in the January 1994 issue of QEX, and the Proceedings
of the 11th AMSAT Annual Meeting and Space Symposium.
I'm not sure exactly how the s/n of -0.6 dB for ZRO level 7 was calculated in
the article you found, but I'm guessing they just compared the power in the CW
signal to the noise in a 100 Hz bandwidth.

I think the other test you've been using had the noise in a 2500
Hz bandwidth (is that right?), so if so then the conversion between the two
scales would just be the ratio of the bandwidths. (2500Hz/100Hz) is 14 dB.
So, -0.6 dB in the 100 Hz would become -14.6 dB in a 2500 Hz band.
Cheers, Darrel, aa7fv